lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 02:00:18 +0200 From: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com> To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>, Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>, Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>, Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>, Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>, Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Di Zhu <zhudi21@...wei.com>, Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>, Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>, "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/15] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Replace usage of found with dedicated iterator > On 9. Apr 2022, at 01:50, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 01:44:00AM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote: >>> Let's try to not make convoluted code worse. Do the following 2 patches >>> achieve what you are looking for? Originally I had a single patch (what >>> is now 2/2) but I figured it would be cleaner to break out the unrelated >>> change into what is now 1/2. >> >> I do agree with not making convoluted code worse, but I was reluctant with >> e.g. introducing new functions for this because others essentially >> have the opposite opinion on this. >> >> I however like solving it that way, it makes it a lot cleaner. > > Yeah, I think 'just adapt to the context and style and intentions of the > code you're changing and don't try to push a robotic one-size-fits-all > solution' is sensible enough for an initial guiding principle. > >>> If you want I can submit these changes separately. >> >> Sure if you want to submit them separately, go ahead. Otherwise I can >> integrate it into a v2, whatever you prefer essentially. > > If you're moving quickly feel free to pick them up. I have lots of other > things on my backlog so it won't be until late next week until I even > consider submitting these. I'm planning to send a v2 earlier than that, so I'll just integrate it there. Thanks, Jakob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists